This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Horde: Graduating into full villainy?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Atik
I've played both Alliance and Horde and I must say that Horde are completely hellbent on destroying the Alliance, not even caring about their common goals.
The main experience I remember about this was The Death Gate in Icecrown. The Alliance were invading with a large force to destroy the Scourge when the Horde noticed them and though "Hey, let's attack the Alliance from behind instead of helping them to kill The Lich King!" After that,
Alliance
have to run around putting the fallen Alliance soldiers out of their misery.
Horde
on the other hand run around finishing off the dying Alliance to show that the Horde may show know mercy.
That's my point. Something to think about.
Go quest in Stonetalon. THAT is exactly the crap Garrosh and Thrall try to stop.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588530
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
588530
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
oneforthemoney
The humans were one of the most numerous intelligent race on Azeroth until thew scourge so its only natural that the ratio would be rather skewed.
By the way, Thrall may not have started a fight but the fact of the matter is that the majority of humans who detest orcs suffered at the hands of the old horde. Thrall only knew the veterans of the war and that is why he tried to make a new start but the 'New horde'. A such many would naturally find that more than a little antagonizing.
Post by
kamchatmonk
In short, no.
Camp Taurajo showed just how valiant and honorable Alliance is. Or that episode with an Alliance officer who kicked his orc prisoner in the head for speaking up until that prisoner was blind. Or the new dawn of Defias Brotherhood. Or an attempt to kill all the survivors of Kezan just to get rid of the witnesses - there's enough filth on the hands of the Alliance as well.
Horde has always been questionable for common western standarts, and Forsaken have always been amoral - simply because undead cannot have any compassion or understanding of others' fear of pain and death (because the Forsaken themselves have been through pain and death themselves). But in Cataclysm, Blizzard specifically shows us instances of Alliance getting dirty or showing the Horde's order and how they deal with their criminals.
Post by
ChairmanKaga
Camp Taurajo showed just how valiant and honorable Alliance is.
Funny you mention that. I played through Southern Barrens on Alliance last night, and I wondered how Blizz would play Taurajo from the Alliance perspective. I was pleasantly surprised by the conversation with
General Hawthorne
. You can read the whole thing in the comments there, but the TLDR is "it was a hard choice, but we decided strategically it had to go, but we intentionally left a wide hole for the civilians to escape, because we weren't out to kill/capture them like dishonorable bastards."
It's all relative -- each side believes its actions justified and honorable, and there is a wide spectrum of characters on both sides from the honorable to the homicidal (Garrosh vs. Krom'gar is a fantastic example of the contrast). So of course the Alliance thinks Taurajo was a justified strike in the course of war, and of course the Horde views it as genocide because it allows them to engage in saber-rattling and boosting the war effort (and the same thing would happen with the sides reversed). The quests and the story line in game play not to reality, but to each side's perception of it.
If we all knew exactly what the other guy was thinking, it would be a far less interesting world we live in.
(Also,
spoiler alert
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
General Hawthorne
gets murdered, and if you pay attention to gossip text, it's pretty clear that it's an inside job by some high-ranking Alliance who have more of the Krom'gar mentality; i.e., can't let silly notions of "honor" keep getting in the way of our war against our sworn adversary. Oh, and they framed the Horde for it. Life is beautiful, eh?)
Post by
51581
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ChairmanKaga
*cough cough*
no it wasn't
*coughhackwheeze*
Okay, so the Horde did do it. But I bet I know
someone who helped make it possible
.
It is reality, biased from both perspectives. There is no altering of facts or actions, only the way they are presented to you. Play both sides and get all the pieces. ;)
See, this is what I'm trying to say :)
Post by
Skreeran
*cough cough*
no it wasn't
*coughhackwheeze*
Okay, so the Horde did do it. But I bet I know
someone who helped make it possible
.
It is reality, biased from both perspectives. There is no altering of facts or actions, only the way they are presented to you. Play both sides and get all the pieces. ;)
See, this is what I'm trying to say :)I agree with you, although I did the Alliance version first (even though I play mainly Horde).
You can read the multi-page discussion we had about it starting
here
.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Funny you mention that. I played through Southern Barrens on Alliance last night, and I wondered how Blizz would play Taurajo from the Alliance perspective. I was pleasantly surprised by the conversation with
General Hawthorne
. You can read the whole thing in the comments there, but the TLDR is "it was a hard choice, but we decided strategically it had to go, but we intentionally left a wide hole for the civilians to escape, because we weren't out to kill/capture them like dishonorable bastards."
Except that, if you want to win a battle, this is exactly what you do. Leave them a chance to run, and they will do it.
Had they not done so, the Camp would have offered a lot more resistance, and likely, a lot more casualties on the Alliance side. Hawthorne may be more centered on honor than Gaines, but he didn't do this because he wanted to save civilians. He did it because otherwise, he risked Taurajo ending his offensive in the Southern Barrens.And what do you base that on?
I got the impression that he genuinely didn't want to kill civilians because he hoped for peace in the future.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
And what do you base that on?
I got the impression that he genuinely didn't want to kill civilians because he hoped for peace in the future.
As everything I say - baseless conjecture meant to offer another view on things (especially since it's an obvious key point of the Art of War, one that's the most cited, in fact). However, Warcraft being Warcraft, Hawthorne is supposed to be a genuine good guy, as he's contrasted by Gaines, the very obvious bad guy who, if the Horde hadn't killed Hawthorne, would have hatched a plan to do it himself. At least, from what we have.Right, and I understand that. I'm simply asking that we remember what is speculation and keep that separate from the facts.
To say "Hawthorne may be more centered on honor than Gaines, but he didn't do this because he wanted to save civilians." is to present your conjecture as fact. I certainly appreciate viewing things in another way, believe me, but it's confusing to present speculation as fact, and that leads to fanon.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
51581
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
306612
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
51581
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I perceived his reaction more in this way:
"A death warrant for the General here? That's good to know, very good to know! You've done a great thing by telling me this."
*player gets rewarded, leaves*
*Gaines throws the intel in a bonfire. *
"Well, that makes my job a helluva lot easier."
So he knew, he could've prevented it, but he simply doesn't. The result is that he's not only not to blame for Hawthorne's death, but he can also use it to put a like minded individual in charge.(Twinbraid)
Dude's a master playah foo'!
(btw, that honorarium has to be honourable, obviously. Phone's messing with me -.-')Yeah, I never thought that he was directly responsible, at least after I found out about the Horde's version (prior to that, I was convinced that it was his agents, disguised as Horde, who had killed Hawthorne). But he certainly didn't do anything to prevent it, and that's still treasonous IMO.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.